Feminism and gay rights divide the working class

[graffic]

Perhaps this is a controversial opinion but I think it is an objective fact that feminism and gay rights movements since the 60's have done nothing to change the material reality of the working class in America and Europe. Why do "revolutionaries" support them and consider bourgeois politicians who spout "feminist" rhetoric or gay rights "rhetoric" better than traditional bourgeois politicians who don't when it divides the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

[cynicles]

This statement is full of ignorance.

[#FF0000]

Why do "revolutionaries" support them and consider bourgeois politicians who spout "feminist" rhetoric or gay rights "rhetoric" better than traditional bourgeois politicians who don't when it divides the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

They don't, though? In fact I've more often seen these figures ruthlessly criticized for their other positions (some 'feminists' and 'gay rights' folks have extremely regressive views on gay people and women, respectively). And I don't think working class people are as anti-woman or anti-gay as people think. Old white men are.

Either way your statements here don't really make much sense to me. What you're saying seems true about liberal feminists and liberal gay-rights advocates, but not of Marxist/Anarchist feminists and gay-rights folks.

[Skyhilist]

Wow.

[Jimmie Higgins]

LOL, don't be a troll. You're the one who apparently is an elitist and thinks that the working class is inherently conservative and not interested in ending oppressions directed at sections of the class. You also apparently think that workers aren't gay or women - when in the US at least women are now a slight majority of the workforce.

Not to mention that sexual liberation (not necessarily in the "free-love" sense) is a movement in response to the existing divisions in the class and in society: repression of homosexuality and oppression of women and gays. If you have some kids paint your fence and you pay the boys $1 and the girls $.75 and then the girls resent that, it's not they who are causing divisions in the group of kids.

[#FF0000]

You also apparently think that workers aren't gay or women - when in the US at least women are now a slight majority of the workforce

Yeah this is true too and always makes me scratch my head when people bring up why we focus on 'social issues' like liberation for women and lgbtq because they have 'nothing to do with labor' or whatever. I've worked with women and homosexual people and transsexual people. I'm a blue collar worker. So I'd say that paying attention to feminism and these issues doesn't divide the working class. Ignoring them and excluding these people, on the other hand, does.

[blake 3:17]

Yeah this is true too and always makes me scratch my head when people bring up why we focus on 'social issues' like liberation for women and lgbtq because they have 'nothing to do with labor' or whatever. I've worked with women and homosexual people and transsexual people. I'm a blue collar worker. So I'd say that paying attention to feminism and these issues doesn't divide the working class. Ignoring them and excluding these people, on the other hand, does.

A number of major labour actions were won in Canada BECAUSE they fought for women's rights and equal pay for equal work. At times sections of the union membership weren't all behind it, but struggles from both below and above helped defend these.

The first win for recognition for same sex couples in Canada was achieved by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in the early 80s. Through bargaining and direct action CUPW achieved the first formal legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples in North America.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dismissing the working class as sexist. racist, and conservative is perhaps as sinister as traditional snobbery because it falsely implies an objective moral superiority and judgment over the working class.

Recognising that some working class folk can be racist or sexist or whatever, and dealing with that issue, is exactly the opposite of any kind of "dismissal". Maybe there are some bourgeois types who look down their noses at the proles but why should we give a fuck what they think?


Freedom from restrictions for feminists and homosexuals is at the expense of social justice and establishments that uphold social capital for the working class such as the Church for example.

Fuck the Church. They've been exploiting and harming workers for centuries, especially those workers who are homosexual or female.


Because it seems an unfair and unjustified trade off of "liberty" which overwhelmingly harms the traditional working class it is perhaps a form of top down class warfare.

How does recognising women and non-heterosexuals as fully paid-up members of society harm workers?


The material reality is that the secularist language of freedom of restrictions rather than social justice and fair play divides the working class and is therefore the language of libertarians and not revolutionaries.

"Freedom from restrictions" and "social justice" are not mutually exclusive, silly.

[LordAcheron]

we all love Obama because of his stance on gay rights and feminism, can't you tell?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm working class, a woman, and LGBT. I demand an end to being oppressed as a worker, a woman, and an LGBT person.

[graffic]

..

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Perhaps you are a satanist or a pagan which is why you have a personal problem with the church. Many charities are religious and the church provides social capital for the working class.
The church also does its best to divide the working class, so as to better enforce theocracy on secular society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Perhaps you are a satanist or a pagan which is why you have a personal problem with the church. Many charities are religious and the church provides social capital for the working class.

I'm sorry!? The fucking catholic church is notorious for it's spread of archaic, conservative and alien sentiments throughout society. And it gets away with it's bullshit because believing in deities somehow alleviates criticism!

Pope Benedict is a beacon of reaction, and the Church is not only the easiest way to spread conservative beliefs (the very beliefs which you complain the working class is inflicted by, nonetheless), but a living and breathing vessel of pointless and outright dangerous authority.





For example in the UK there are quota's for women in politics and the "feminists" are pushing for them to be in boardrooms as well as other high paid professions. They don't push for more women doing the bins or in manual labour which are still majority male jobs. Why don't they have quota's for working class men in politics and big business? Must be a gender issue.Hohohohoho. Strawmanning a query, now? That's wonderful. Splendid.


I think the material reality is otherwise.Here we go again with the mysticism. What 'material reality' would this be, mm? Are the rocks mischievously telling people that the working class must get past bigotry, minority bias and reactionary sentiment before they can have a mass-movement? Are you somehow suggesting that we have a reactionary revolution, with reactionary sentiment and reactionary goals?

I don't know what revolution you've got in mind, but I can assure you that I would be the first person to try and screw it up.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps you are a satanist or a pagan which is why you have a personal problem with the church.

Nope, I'm an anti-theist, and my problem is that the Church encourages people to believe in (and perhaps more importantly, act on) all kinds of stupid bullshit for no good reason.


Many charities are religious and the church provides social capital for the working class.

Charity should be able to exist without needing a whole bunch of self-serving lies invented by a bunch of sexually dysfunctional old men, and there are plenty of cases where it does.

Mind you, charity only deals with the symptoms, rather than treating the underlying defect in society.


For example in the UK there are quota's for women in politics

The mere mention of "quotas" places you closer to the category of "over-privileged bullshitter". Who sets these quotas?


and the "feminists" are pushing for them to be in boardrooms as well as other high paid professions.

Why does it matter if boardroom members or professionals have a penis or not?


They don't push for more women doing the bins or in manual labour which are still majority male jobs.

So? Those aren't exactly glamorous jobs for anyone.


Why don't they have quota's for working class men in politics and big business? Must be a gender issue.

They don't have "quotas", and if they do then they are fucking idiots.


I think the material reality is otherwise.

Demonstrate it, then.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

The troll's work is done, no need to add to it.

*flicks a very mature and intelligent 'V' at their avatar* Good theory mate, good luck to you

[graffic]

..

[Will Scarlet]

And then there's the recent example of a gay couple who had nothing better to do with their time than drag a religious petty-bourgeois b&b owner through the courts for refusing to let them share a bed in her house on religious grounds. They won the case because the law favours freedom from restrictions for homosexuals at the expense of the values of the petty bourgeios and working class. Petty bougeois religious folk now risk being sued, putting their livelihoods and families in jeopardy if they express their religion in the unique case of a b&b which is essentially someones home although happens to be public. I consider it an unjustified act of top-down class warfare.
Hey guys, gays are making class warfare against petty bourgeoisie, this is really bad for some reason.

[graffic]

..

[Rugged Collectivist]

I sum all these anti-religious hatred replies as you caring about freedom from restrictions rather than the material affects on society. Hence you are Libertarians, not socialists. The simple fact remains: the material reality is that the church is altruistic.You cannot be revolutionaries if you dismiss the working class as sexist, racist, and conservative.

If you were a socialist worthy of the title, you would know that the church is deeply reactionary. The church has preached against class struggle for centuries, reassuring the poor that they would inherit heaven, and telling them to forgo material wealth while it hypocritically wormed it's way into the established order. I mean holy shit, the church sided with fascism and you think it represents the interests of the working class?

In regard to charity, understand that there's no "altruism" involved there. The church is merely conducting a PR campaign in an attempt to maintain it's image and influence. This is nothing new.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You cannot be revolutionaries if you dismiss the working class as sexist, racist, and conservative.But you claimed it was divisive to support women's liberation or gay rights - implying that the working class IS conservative and sexist.

I don't think workers are inherently or in general - but if anti-sexists and anti-bigots remain quiet and allow sexism and homophobia, then it won't matter anyway what most people think and, likely, the acceptance of those ideas and lack of opposition means that many people will just adopt these views as "normal".


I sum all these anti-religious hatred replies as you caring about freedom from restrictions rather than the material affects on society. Hence you are Libertarians, not socialists. The simple fact remains: the material reality is that the church is altruistic.

Freedom from restrictions? How about smashing the oppression of people in our class or building a united class capable of fighting against the capitalists?

As for religious institutions, well I don't know how something can "materially" have an inmateral quality such as "altruism". But I guess if you mean they do chairity work, then yes, this is often the case. Then again so do liberal NGOs and rich philanthropists. Revolutionaries want people to run their own lives cooperativly, not rely on the kindness of the rich and powerful.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The material reality is that the church is altruistic.

Which is why the Church has sold off all its possessions in order to aid the poor, right?

[ComradeOfJoplin]

We should fight for all types of people in all situations.

[#FF0000]

The simple fact remains: the material reality is that the church is altruistic.

The church is a lot of things.


You cannot be revolutionaries if you dismiss the working class as sexist, racist, and conservative.

Good thing we don't do that, then?

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

You are more interested in attacking the values of the working class and petty bourgeois

1) I know a hell of a lot of working class atheists.
2) Things that workers believe and values they hold aren't sacrosanct because workers hold them. There are a lot of workers who are racist and conservative. That isn't suddenly "okay" because they are workers, though.

EDIT:

I'd also say it's kind of silly to talk about "working class values". I'd argue they don't exist and that the values people hold are those of power and privilege.


through secularist language masking top-down class warfare aimed at disenfranchising the working class and reducing social capital of the working class.And here I have to ask what the fuck you're even saying. What do you mean top-down class warfare? And what do you mean when you say the church provides workers social capital?

[graffic]

..

[hetz]

through secularist language masking top-down class warfare aimed at disenfranchising the working class and reducing social capital of the working class.
Cool postmodernism. :laugh:

[#FF0000]

A church, and a mosque or synagogue for that matter, is one of the few places that are classless. It gives working class people a chance to network with the petty bourgeoise and bourgeoise, and vice versa. I consider that a good thing in society.

I think it is very very cute that you think rich and poor go to the same church
And regardless, I don't really see how that kind of thing helps all that much anyway.

I mean, if you said church is one of the few places where "community" exists in this increasingly atomized western society then I'd be more on board. But I don't think church provides the "social capital" you're thinking of either way.

[NGNM85]

Perhaps this is a controversial opinion but I think it is an objective fact that feminism and gay rights movements since the 60's have done nothing to change the material reality of the working class in America and Europe.

Nonsense.


Why do "revolutionaries" support them and consider bourgeois politicians who spout "feminist" rhetoric or gay rights "rhetoric" better than traditional bourgeois politicians who don't when it divides the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

This is for several reasons. First of all, there's the obvious ethical imperative to defend victimized, or marginalized groups. Second; there are practical, logistical reasons, such as the fact that the Radical Left can only remain irrelevent to the working class if it addresses the pressing, everyday issues facing them, that it's only possible to build a massive, broad-based working class movement by knocking down the social, and institutional barriers that devide them, and, last, but not least because these struggles for 'modest increments of dignity' offer opportunities to build organization, and raise the consciousness among the working class.


Dismissing the working class as sexist. racist, and conservative is perhaps as sinister as traditional snobbery because it falsely implies an objective moral superiority and judgment over the working class.

It implies an objective moral superiority over bigots, which happens to be a very sound argument.


Freedom from restrictions for feminists and homosexuals is at the expense of social justice and establishments that uphold social capital for the working class such as the Church for example. Because it seems an unfair and unjustified trade off of "liberty" which overwhelmingly harms the traditional working class it is perhaps a form of top down class warfare. The material reality is that the secularist language of freedom of restrictions rather than social justice and fair play divides the working class and is therefore the language of libertarians and not revolutionaries.

There's no tradeoff. Extending equal rights to women, or homosexuals does not reduce my rights, or my ability to exercise those rights. It's not a zero-sum game.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

For example in the UK there are quota's for women in politics and the "feminists" are pushing for them to be in boardrooms as well as other high paid professions.

That's actually one of the failings of liberal feminism that people criticize though -- it's total abandonment of working class women.


They don't push for more women doing the bins or in manual labour which are still majority male jobs. Why don't they have quota's for working class men in politics and big business? Must be a gender issue.Probably because women are already over-represented in these lower-paying jobs as it is. The working class "pink collar" work they are often corralled into.

But again, getting "more women in the boardroom" is a solidly liberal feminist thing, which gets criticized up and down by radicals all over the place.


And then there's the recent example of a gay couple who had nothing better to do with their time than drag a religious petty-bourgeois b&b owner through the courts for refusing to let them share a bed in her house on religious grounds.So far, no problem here?


They won the case because the law favours freedom from restrictions for homosexuals at the expense of the values of the petty bourgeios and working class.There is a lot to say here!

I think it's interesting that you said that we can't be revolutionaries if we write off the working class as conservative and bigoted, and then you go on to insist the working class is inherently conservative and bigoted.

I also think it's interesting how you rope the working class in here when we're talking about the owner of an establishment.

And I think it's also very interesting how you seem to think women and homosexuals are a thing separate from the working class. "The Working Class" isn't one big white, male, christian monolith, you know!

And again, the values held by people who are working class aren't sacrosanct because they are working class, nor do they necessarily represent the rest of the working class or the interests of the working class as a whole.

I don't think "working class values" exist in capitalist society. What exists are the values of the ruling class, of power and privilege. "Capitalist Hegemony" and all that.

Also I am not sure why you think someone can't be for freedom from restrictions as well as a communist. Seems like you're creating a false dichotomy there.


Petty bougeois religious folk now risk being sued, putting their livelihoods and families in jeopardy if they express their religion in the unique case of a b&b which is essentially someones home although happens to be public. I consider it an unjustified act of top-down class warfare.1) Cry me a river.
2) Can you define "top-down class warfare"?
3) I wonder what you think of the US's 14th Ammendment!

[#FF0000]

"raising the consciousness among the working class".

What do you mean by this? Do you want me to go through the long history of collaboration between feminists and the labor movement here in the United States?

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

Women rights and gay rights do not alleviate oppression of the working class.

Women and gay people are part of the working class, though. And like I said, the working class is not some monolithic bloc. Certain groups of workers do have a whole other pile of nonsense to deal with on top of the normal nonsense we have to deal with as workers. You cannot organize and liberate white male workers alone.


They give freedom of restrictions to those minorities at the expense of the working class social capital. To deny this is to deny the material reality.

1) You are talking about "those minorities" as if they are not also a part of the working class.
2) How does removing unjust restriction negatively affect "the working class"?
3) What is this "social capital", exactly? You never really explained it other than saying "church lets people of different classes mingle and that is good" without explaining why, and just assuming that statement was true in the first place when there are a million other places where that more often happens than in church.
4) Should "those minorities" just deal with their oppression so white males can have it better?


Why not? And it has no bearing on my point anyway.

Why not? Because people of all ethnicities and genders and identities make up the working class. And it does have a bearing on your point because whether you realize it or not (apparently you don't?) your entire point seems to rest on the assumption that the working class is exclusively white, male, and christian.


I think working class values are challenged by capitalist society. It is in the interest of the ruling class to attack working class values because people are more likely to be better consumers. For example, prudishness is bad for advertising and discrimination is bad for profit.

Except that is completely absurd, because the working class as it exists today is a product of capitalism. These "working class values" didn't develop in a vacuum -- they are ruling class values internalized.

And again, you are the one insisting that workers are inherently conservative, racist, and generally bigoted, which is plainly false to anyone who doesn't live in a bubble. "Prudishness" is a working class value? "Discrimination" is a working class value? Better go tell my hard-living co-workers this. We didn't get the memo.

And what's kinda weird is that you also seem to think that being conservative, bigoted, and racist isn't necessarily a bad thing. "Working class values" after all.


I think it is good to be free from restrictions when it does not conflict with social justice and fair play.

Can you give me an example of how freedom from restrictions can ever be in conflict with those things?

[#FF0000]

i gotta say this is one of the weirdest discussions i've had in awhile.

[graffic]

Women and gay people are part of the working class, though. And like I said, the working class is not some monolithic bloc. Certain groups of workers do have a whole other pile of nonsense to deal with on top of the normal nonsense we have to deal with as workers. You cannot organize and liberate white male workers alone.

Feminists and gay activists are to ideologies what partridge birds are to farmers - They are attractive to look at and can be shot down now and again but are useless. They serve no overall purpose and are only concerned with their own welfare regardless of what ideological framework that fits into. Right now the language is adopted by the bourgeois whose laws favoring freedom of restrictions seems to have bought them off even though the working class is still oppressed. Alternatively, real revolutionaries are concerned with the working class even if they are sexist, racist, homophobic and conservative. Because of feminism a working class women thinks she has more in common with a divorced millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man. And because of gay rights a poor homosexual thinks he has more in common with a rich gay man than a fellow working class man. These contradictions don't appear in straight male working class men because they are more likely to be loyal to their class and genuinely care about the suffering of the poor above all else.

[#FF0000]

Feminists and gay activists are to ideologies what partridge birds are to farmers - They are attractive to look at and can be shot down now and again but are useless.

Hahah, no, that is simply not true. These sorts of bigotry perpetuate capitalism and the class system. You can't liberate anyone from class society without attacking the attitudes and ideologies that posit that one's race, gender, sex, sexual identity, make one lesser than another.

Fighting sexism and homophobia are integral to anti-capitalist struggle.


Right now the language is adopted by the bourgeois whose laws favoring freedom of restrictions seems to have bought them off even though the working class is still oppressedOnce again, liberal feminists and liberal gay-rights advocates are and should be ruthlessly criticized.


Alternatively, real revolutionaries are concerned with the working class even if they are sexist, racist, homophobic and conservative.These attitudes must be stamped out if the working class is to liberate itself. One can't say they are concerned with the working class unless they are explicitly anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, etc.

[#FF0000]

Because of feminism a working class women thinks she has more in common with a divorced millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man.

That isn't true though and I don't think you know enough about feminism to talk about it. But I'll play along.

And because of sexism, working class men think that they have more in common with a rich man than a working class woman.


And because of gay rights a poor homosexual thinks he has more in common with a rich gay man than a fellow working class man.

And because of homophobia, working class men think they have more in common with a straight rich man than a gay working class man.


These contradictions don't appear in straight male working class men because they are more likely to be loyal to their class and genuinely care about the suffering of the poor above all else.

I suppose that's why white working class men in the United States so staunchly vote for the wealthiest, most pro-business and anti-worker politicians in the united states. Politicians who also happen to be explicitly anti-woman ("If a woman is raped, it is God's will!") and homophobic ("Marriage is one man and one woman!").

Again, like I"ve said time and time and time again, liberal feminists and liberal lgbtq advocates who do not acknowledge class are and should be ruthlessly criticized -- as should so called "socialists" who ignore issues of sex, gender, race, etc.

Saying feminism and lgbtq advocacy divides the working class is as absurd as when people accuse anti-racists for being racists themselves for addressing issues of race. Addressing the issues doesn't divide the working class. The issues of sexism and homophobia do!

[#FF0000]

lmao at a guy raving about 'material reality' and then talking about the 'working class male' like he is the noble savage.

[Rugged Collectivist]

That's an immature, generalised claim. There is a long history of anti-establishment radical priests and vicars standing up for the oppressed.

Those people are the exception though, and they're often persecuted by the church hierarchy, until they're dead and no longer dangerous of course. That's when the church will cynically use them as examples of religious virtue.


But those types of people presumably don't interest you. You are more interested in attacking the values of the working class and petty bourgeois through secularist language masking top-down class warfare aimed at disenfranchising the working class and reducing social capital of the working class.

First of all, we shouldn't endorse everything workers believe. There are a ton of workers who support and believe in capitalism. Should we support them?

Secondly, what about countries where atheism is the majority opinion? Are these people not workers or something?

[graffic]

..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is though, and it's a big one, is that straight working class men are the majority. They are much less likely to think they have anything in common with rich straight men simply because there are much more of them. The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights is much more likely to make straight men think like that. It divides the working class.

Baseless assertion. How do things such as Gay/Straight alliances divide the working class when they formed on the basis of unity? Also, considering that the working class is the larger one by population, the number of working class non-heterosexuals statistically exceeds those who are not working class.


Anyway, "Men" are not privileged.

Ahahahaha! That's really funny, especially since gender pay gaps still exist.


Ruling class men certainly are privileged however any "privilege" working class men have is earned by the fact it requires more effort to be a man in most aspects of life. Being a man is all about effort.

Macho nonsense.


Women are not expected to be tough. Men are still the ones who are expected to put their necks on the line first in life or death situations or danger.

Have you ever considered that such gender-specific expectations are part of the problem?


Society works better this way.

Prove it.


And most people want to bring their children up in that way just like their parents did, and their parents did.

Well, the idea is to convince them otherwise.


Of course, lesbian feminists and gay rights activists cannot emphasise with this because they play no role in the reproductive process and only have themselves to indulge.

It appears you are confusing homosexuality with sexual sterility. Protip: gays and lesbians are just as capable of reproduction as straights.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

This is a good troll. Grafficism-Reverse Third Worldism.

[Quail]

The problem is though, and it's a big one, is that straight working class men are the majority. They are much less likely to think they have anything in common with rich straight men simply because there are much more of them. The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights is much more likely to make straight working class men think like that. It divides the working class.
Half of the population are female, you know. That's half of the working class (since class is defined by a person's relationship to the means of production). Telling half of the working class that they don't deserve equal rights purely based on their gender is divisive to the working class, not a movement that sees every working class person as equally important and deserving of rights. Same with LGBT people, who also make up a significant proportion of the working class. For some people feminist or LGBT activism is a stepping stone to getting involved with wider struggles.


Anyway "Men" are not privileged. Ruling class men are privileged however any "privilege" working class men have is earned by the fact it requires more effort to be a man in most aspects of life. Being a man is all about effort. Women are not expected to be tough. Men are still the ones who are expected to put their necks on the line first in life or death situations or danger.
Why is this? It's because patriarchy says that women are too weak and emotional to do "real, manly" work and are best suited to raising children and keeping their homes clean and tidy. Doing away with patriarchal beliefs and practices is beneficial to everyone, working class men and women.


Society works better this way.
Does it? So many expectations on us based on our gender seems pretty unhealthy to me. Patriarchy is the root of all kinds of bullshit from self-esteem issues, victim-blaming in sexual assault cases, a higher rate of suicide in men, the oppression of LGBT people... Are you sure that doing away with gender roles wouldn't be of benefit?


And most people want to bring their children up in that way just like their parents did, and their parents did.
How do you know what most people want? Perhaps they're surrounded by messages from the rest of society that there is only one "right" or "normal" way to raise a child.


Of course, lesbian feminists and gay rights activists cannot emphasise with this because they don't have children and only have themselves to indulge.
I guess you mean empathise? Well, I'm a bisexual feminist woman with a child, so there's a counter-example for you. People who aren't straight can and do have and raise children.

In general, I'm of the opinion that we can't liberate the working class without also doing away with other forms of oppression, and we should fight any other oppression (sexism, racism, etc) alongside the oppression of the working class.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Perhaps you are a satanist or a pagan which is why you have a personal problem with the church. Many charities are religious and the church provides social capital for the working class.

So you're either a Christian or a Satanist?

[#FF0000]

The problem is though, and it's a big one, is that straight working class men are the majority.

Women are half the population. But what does that say when you're able to forget something like that?


They are much less likely to think they have anything in common with rich straight men simply because there are much more of them.

Explains, again, why American white men voted overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney.


The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights is much more likely to make straight working class men think like that. It divides the working class.

Think like what? How does acknowledging homophobia and sexism in society divide the working class? You've made a lot of dreamy assertions but never once backed them up, or even really defended them when they were challenged. You either just jettisoned the point that was challenged entirely or jettisoned it and then repeated it again later on.


Anyway "Men" are not privileged.

I don't know much about "privilege" but men do not have to deal with the sexism and gender bias that women do. Men get paid more for the same work, and aren't corralled into low-paying "pink collar" work. This happens among professionals as well (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/)(since you care so much about the petit-bourgeoisie).


Ruling class men are privileged however any "privilege" working class men have is earned by the fact it requires more effort to be a man in most aspects of life.

Nah, as a white dude and from talking to people about their lives and struggles, I am pretty solidly sure that being white and a man is easy mode in the West. I'm never going to get the shit kicked out of me or lose a job for being gay. I'm gonna get paid more than the women I know, plus I don't have to worry that people will ignore me or think my opinion isn't worth as much. And it's pretty great being able to walk around without having to be hyper-aware of my surroundings so I don't get assaulted or harassed.

Being a white dude is where it's at, tbh. :thumbup1:


Being a man is all about effort.

Women get paid less for the same work. Being a woman or an ethnic minority means you've got the work harder for the same recognition as a white guy.

And keep in mind, this doesn't mean WHITE DUDES ARE EVIL. The problem isn't "WHITE MEN". The problem is sexism and racism, which is deeply ingrained in society.


Women are not expected to be tough

No, they're expected to be nurturing, demure, submissive, bad at math, emotionally unstable, etc. etc. etc.


Men are still the ones who are expected to put their necks on the line first in life or death situations or danger.

This is funny because we all attack gender roles like this too.


Society works better this way.

Neat assertion.


And most people want to bring their children up in that way just like their parents did, and their parents did.


Another assertion. And a dumb one too considering I know tons of parents (working class ones!!!!) who bring up their kids like "BE WHOEVER YOU WANT KID. DO YOU 24/7" and don't give a shit if their son wants to be Belle for Halloween or if their daughters wants to play w/ trucks and dress up like Spiderman.


Of course, lesbian feminists and gay rights activists cannot empathise with this because they don't have children and only have themselves to indulge.

I work with homosexuals who have children. v:mellow:v

this is a weird discussion, like i said! it is like you think the only people who qualify as "Working class" are people who look like you. I would love to see you try and operate in my warehouse or the factory I worked a few seasons back. You'd have an aneurism!

[graffic]

Half of the population are female, you know. That's half of the working class (since class is defined by a person's relationship to the means of production). Telling half of the working class that they don't deserve equal rights purely based on their gender is divisive to the working class, not a movement that sees every working class person as equally important and deserving of rights. Same with LGBT people, who also make up a significant proportion of the working class. For some people feminist or LGBT activism is a stepping stone to getting involved with wider struggles.

The majority of the working class are straight men. Working class feminists see themselves having more in common with a divorced, millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man. Poor homosexuals see themselves having more in common with a rich gay man than a working class straight man. I think that straight working class men however, when freedom from restrictions for homosexuals does not affect social justice, have no reason to see themselves having more in common with an upper class straight man than a working class man. Even when males are privileged in the most reactionary, old fashioned, bigoted way they still have no reason to like feminists and gay rights activists do. The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights does give them a reason to.

For example, In the U.K liberals want to pass a bill that will make churches who choose not to marry homosexuals excluded from funding. This will inevitably lead to closure of some churches. The favoring of freedom of restrictions for homosexuals instead of social justice and fair play potentially reduces the social capital of the working class and petty bourgeois if churches are forced to close. It is unjustified top down class warfare. Churches provide social capital for the working class by enabling workers to network with the bourgeoise as well as providing a sense of "community" . For example a working class family who go to a church and network with the bourgeoisie might secure a job opportunity for their impoverished son. But if the church is closed this is no longer possible. In this case it's a clear cut case of freedom of restrictions for homosexuals changing the material reality of the working class and petty bourgeois. Those who support this are libertarians, not revolutionaries.

[#FF0000]

The majority of the working class are straight
men.

Being the majority =/= Being the only ones who matter.


Working class feminists see themselves having more in common with a divorced, millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man. Liberal feminists who we criticize tirelessly do. Not Marxist/Anarchist feminists.


Poor homosexuals see themselves having more in common with a rich gay man than a working class straight man.Again, you're talking about liberals vs. radicals.


Straight working class men however, when freedom from restrictions for homosexuals does not affect social justice, have no reason to see themselves having more in common with an upper class straight man than a working class man.

Except this is demonstrably false. White working men vote against their interests consistently here in America, and in England they tend to be, as a "bloc" a fair shake more right wing than the Labor party.


Even when males are privileged in the most reactionary, old fashioned, bigoted way they still have no reason to like feminists and gay rights activists do. The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights does give them a reason to.

Oh, of course not. Especially not when their privilege is so pronounced. Nobody likes being at the bottom on the totem pole. Privilege means they have someone to look down on. It's why broke whites in the South fought for the American Confederacy.

Fortunately, old bitter white dudes (like yourself?) are dying out and being replaced by white working class youth who have grown up around people who are different from them, and don't have a conniption whenever someone points out that racism and sexism and homophobia are things. v:mellow:v


The favoring of freedom of restrictions for homosexuals instead of social justice and fair play potentially reduces the social capital of the working class and petty bourgeois if churches are forced to close.It is unjustified top down class warfare. 1) How is guaranteeing everyone the same rights not social justice and fair play?
2) What is "top-down class warfare"?


So for example a working class family who go to a church and network with the bourgeoisie might secure an job opportunity for their impoverished son.How much of this kind of networking actually happens? Color me extremely skeptical that this actually happens, and that it happens often enough for this to even be a problem. There are other institutions that I know provide this kind of opportunity for upward mobility, and better. And again, I just don't believe that the rich and the poor are going to the same churches anyway. It certainly doesn't happen here in America, and so I've got serious doubts it happens in England where class stratification is so much more pronounced -- people here already all think they're "middle class".


I think those who consider the welfare of the working class of lesser importance than the desire for homosexuals to be free from restrictions libertarians, not revolutionaries.Libertarians and not revolutionaries, says you. Meanwhile we don't think one can claim to be a revolutionary and not be "libertarian" in that sense.

You're the one that doesn't consider the welfare of the working class, however, because the only section of the working class you're willing to consider are the workers who are white, male and christian like you are. I've said before, you cannot abolish the class system without taking aim at all oppression. Freedom for white men alone isn't freedom -- it is privilege.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

The simple fact remains, so called male "privilege" is more cohesive, inclusive and accepting of homosexuals than homosexual "rights" and "freedom of restrictions" are of heterosexuals.

Just some word salad real quick, I guess?

But either way you're still on this "rights for gay people hurts straight people" kick which is flat out false. The only people it even comes close to hurting are bigots and I'm not really shedding any tears there.


The latter does not even acknowledge heterosexuals. It has a negative affect on material reality for working class. It is Libertarian to the bone.

No it doesn't, though, because homosexuals are of the working class, and attacking attitudes like homophobia and sexism that divide the working class are a net gain. They strengthen working class unity.



That has nothing to do with working class men being straight or anti-feminist and everything to do with ignorance.

Yeah.


Feminists/gay rights activists abandoning their class and struggle to vote for a bourgeoise who says what they want to here is far more common than the other way around.

For the millionth time, Graffic, you're talking about liberal feminists and liberal gay advocates who, like I said, should be and are criticized for not paying attention to class struggle and capitalism.


If so called revolutionaries stopped pushing the LGBT/feminist agenda at the expense of social justice

How does fighting for equality for women and homosexuals come at the expense of social justice?


the majority of those who make up the vanguard of revolutionary politics - the straight working class males - would be much more likely to be class conscious and oppression would end without the blinking of an eye.

But you cannot fight the oppression of class society without fighting all systems that make one person lesser to another. And this is why fighting sexism and racism and homophobia are absolutely integral to class struggle. You cannot have liberation for white men alone and call it "liberation" of any kind.

[doesn't even make sense]

This might have been an interesting and relevant discussion decades ago when the neoliberal right began to use issues of cultural mores to shatter reformist coalitions but that era, in the U.S.A. at least, seems to be drawing to a close.

[doesn't even make sense]

The majority of the working class are straight men. Working class feminists see themselves having more in common with a divorced, millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man. Poor homosexuals see themselves having more in common with a rich gay man than a working class straight man. I think that straight working class men however, when freedom from restrictions for homosexuals does not affect social justice, have no reason to see themselves having more in common with an upper class straight man than a working class man. Even when males are privileged in the most reactionary, old fashioned, bigoted way they still have no reason to like feminists and gay rights activists do. The pushing of minority feminist and gay rights does give them a reason to.

For example, In the U.K liberals want to pass a bill that will make churches who choose not to marry homosexuals excluded from funding. This will inevitably lead to closure of some churches. The favoring of freedom of restrictions for homosexuals instead of social justice and fair play potentially reduces the social capital of the working class and petty bourgeois if churches are forced to close. It is unjustified top down class warfare. Churches provide social capital for the working class by enabling workers to network with the bourgeoise as well as providing a sense of "community" . For example a working class family who go to a church and network with the bourgeoisie might secure a job opportunity for their impoverished son. But if the church is closed this is no longer possible. In this case it's a clear cut case of freedom of restrictions for homosexuals changing the material reality of the working class and petty bourgeois. Those who support this are libertarians, not revolutionaries.

But it seems like what you're advocating is neither libertarian nor revolutionary but rather reformist. It sounds like your main concern is maximizing the welfare of the working class under capitalism by vociferously opposing anything that might threaten the living conditions of workers in any way. Can't you see that this is a losing game? The game is rigged. Do you really think it just so happens that regressive social mores are associated with the neoliberal right, or that fear of social repression allows the neoliberal left to secure votes while jettisoning any regard for economic issues?

And while I'm on that point, you, presumably a straight white Christian (perhaps lapsed) male seem very strongly attuned to how conservative politicians exploit conservative values among large segments of workers to split the working class (although you blame the victim rather than the perpetrator).

Have you taken the time to think of the other side of the coin? For the massive segments of the working class (now, sorry to tell you, outnumbering the traditional straight aged white male blue collar worker) the social and often physical threat of a repressive social climate drives them to support the liberal establishment "left". Look at this latest election in the United States for a prime example. You disdain lgbt workers, female workers, and workers of color for making a political deal with the devil in the face of real and immediate threats to their well being but give conservative white workers a complete pass for making a similar deal with bourgeois politicians for no good reason at all other than sheer cultural backwardness. This bit of vile victim blaming is why your argument is viewed with such revulsion among leftists.

[#FF0000]

Have you taken the time to think of the other side of the coin? For the massive segments of the working class (now, sorry to tell you, outnumbering the traditional straight aged white male blue collar worker) the social and often physical threat of a repressive social climate drives them to support the liberal establishment "left". Look at this latest election in the United States for a prime example. You disdain lgbt workers, female workers, and workers of color for making a political deal with the devil in the face of real and immediate threats to their well being but give conservative white workers a complete pass for making a similar deal with bourgeois politicians for no good reason at all other than sheer cultural backwardness. This bit of vile victim blaming is why your argument is viewed with such revulsion among leftists.

This is extremely, extremely well said.

[l'Enfermé]

Meh. In Europe, the movement for gender equality, anti-racism, decriminalization of homosexuality etc, etc, was basically created by Socialists in general and Marxists specifically. Engels, Fourier-inspired Bebel(Fourier invented the word "feminism" I'm told), Zetkin, and so on. What is to be opposed is bourgeois feminism, and unfortunately RevLeft is not lacking in this sort of bourgeois ideologist. Gay rights on the other is not such an important question as gender equality; women make up half of the working class, but gays only a tiny portion of it.

[graffic]

..

[Yuppie Grinder]

Perhaps this is a controversial opinion but I think it is an objective fact that feminism and gay rights movements since the 60's have done nothing to change the material reality of the working class in America and Europe. Why do "revolutionaries" support them and consider bourgeois politicians who spout "feminist" rhetoric or gay rights "rhetoric" better than traditional bourgeois politicians who don't when it divides the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

Dismissing the working class as sexist. racist, and conservative is perhaps as sinister as traditional snobbery because it falsely implies an objective moral superiority and judgment over the working class. Freedom from restrictions for feminists and homosexuals is at the expense of social justice and establishments that uphold social capital for the working class such as the Church for example. Because it seems an unfair and unjustified trade off of "liberty" which overwhelmingly harms the traditional working class it is perhaps a form of top down class warfare. The material reality is that the secularist language of freedom of restrictions rather than social justice and fair play divides the working class and is therefore the language of libertarians and not revolutionaries.

I have a website to suggest to you. The users there would agree with your statement wholesale and are very like minded. I assure you that everyone there would respect your arguments instead of just dismissing them without any thought like the ignorant fools here.
It's called StormFront.

[#FF0000]

No I think that the majority of the working class are straight males therefore LGBT/feminist issues dressed up as "progressive politics" drive the vanguard of revolutionary politics into agreement with bourgeois straight males because the material reality is that LGBT/feminist desires for "freedom of restrictions" are Libertarian and not working class interests.

You think that the majority of them are, but they kind of aren't anymore, dude. You're subscribing to a mythic, idealized vision of the macho white industrial worker here. White men aren't the absolute majority anymore. Not in America, and not in England.

And you've never tried to explain why lgbt and feminist issues are not "working class" issues. Is not demanding pay and conditions equal to that of co-workers a working class issue? Is not harassment in the work place a working class issue?

And again, I don't see how freedom from arbitrary restrictions (that is, freedom from oppression) is not a goal of revolutionaries.

For the nth time, you keep talking about homosexuals and women as if they are something separate from the working class. The fact of the matter is that the working class is made up of all sorts, and that the class as a whole can only be liberated when everyone is liberated.


What makes you think working class men would be more receptive to the idea of being a whipped metro sexual ***** boys passively going a long with the destruction of their social capital than the straight male talk of a straight, male "culturally backward" bourgeois politician?

POST OF THE YEAR

EDIT: btw, this is you insisting working class dudes are inherently conservative and bigoted again. Also gay liberation doesn't mean straight guys have to be (lol) "metro sexual ***** boys". I think your reaction to the idea of gay people being treated equal really says a lot and is hella interesting!


If you think otherwise then you simply don't understand what it is to be a working class man, and you never will .Again, as a white male laborer who works among people of all races, sexual orientations, genders, sexes, identities, etc, I really have to sit here and scratch my head. What am I missing exactly? What are we missing about being working class that you in your whitebread fantasy land have such a solid handle on?

Am I not a working class dude because I'm an atheist?

Are my co-workers not working class because some of them are female, transgender, or gay?

EDIT2: so hey from here on out can you actually directly engage points being made and defend your own instead of just repeating your assertions over and over?

[#FF0000]

Gay rights on the other is not such an important question as gender equality; women make up half of the working class, but gays only a tiny portion of it.

No, gay rights (kinda don't like that term -- we're interested in far more than "equality in the eyes of the law") is certainly an important question, because it isn't a numbers game. Like I've been saying, we can't just keep some structures of oppression around. Our goal is to dismantle all of them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This is kind of a weird thread, but I'll throw my two cents in.


Perhaps this is a controversial opinion but I think it is an objective fact that feminism and gay rights movements since the 60's have done nothing to change the material reality of the working class in America and Europe.

An "objective fact"? It's your opinion, not an objective fact.

In Italy, for example, there was a big struggle during the 1970's over the "women's issue" of abortion. In reality abortion doesn't just offer "material benefits" to women, I would argue that it's beneficial to people in general, men and women. Being able to manage your family & not being enslaved to a life of domestic servitude definitely raises one's quality of life. In fact it was only after a sustained struggle throughout the 1970's (the highpoint probably being 50,000 marching in Rome over the issue in 1976) that abortion was finally legalized in the home of Catholicism, in 1978.

It's also worth noting that abortion was primarily a working class issue at this time, as wealthier Italian women mostly took oral contraception as birth control.

[graffic]

..

[cynicles]

You've pretty much convinced everyone here that you'll look for any hacky excuse to prevent the fight against bigotry. That you dismiss over half the global working class(women) as having irrelevant concerns is enough to make me think troll. To say nothing of your ignorance on how these issues affect the queer community. And if you're going to dismiss women's rights why not the fight against racism?

[l'Enfermé]

No, gay rights (kinda don't like that term -- we're interested in far more than "equality in the eyes of the law") is certainly an important question, because it isn't a numbers game. Like I've been saying, we can't just keep some structures of oppression around. Our goal is to dismantle all of them.
In a socialist society sure but I'm talking about the priorities of socialists in capitalist society, and gay rights is right there at the bottom, while gender equality, anti-racism and such are at the top. It is a "numbers game", since discrimination against women and racial minorities is more important because women and racial minorities are a much bigger part of the proletariat.

[#FF0000]

Please explain why a working class feminist women who thinks she has more in common with a divorced millionaire wife who sends her kids to private school than a working class man is a liberal

I don't think anyone really said this. I just said that it is liberal feminists who look at gender and don't take class society into consideration.

whilst a working class straight man who mistakenly thinks he has more in common with a straight bourgoise male is “culturally backward” and sexist?

They aren't necessarily -- liberals do it too and then pay lip service to gay rights n feminism. But then there are working class straight dudes who run into the arms of the Right as they explicitly attack the rights and status of women and homosexuals.

[#FF0000]

In a socialist society sure but I'm talking about the priorities of socialists in capitalist society, and gay rights is right there at the bottom, while gender equality, anti-racism and such are at the top. It is a "numbers game", since discrimination against women and racial minorities is more important because women and racial minorities are a much bigger part of the proletariat.

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't agree in the least bit. I seriously don't think it's a good idea to just ignore the issues facing lgbt workers just because "ah well there's not many of you".

That's kind of fucked up, in fact.

[graffic]

..

[Yuppie Grinder]

From my experience, wealthy people are generally much more socially conservative than working class people. This idea that all workers are backwards reactionaries comes from the assumption that the impoverished are all unintelligent.

[cynicles]

I care deeply about women's rights and gay rights (womens rights especially - my mother, sister and girlfriend are them). However I care more about the material affects on society than freedom from restrictions. I think that unfortunately many in the LGBT community, especially the bourgeoisie liberal ones, wish to have it both ways.
That doesn't make any sense. The bourgeoise liberals are a minority of the gay community and they don't wan't it both ways they only want liberal rights like all bourgeoise middle and upper class people. The dis-proportionate majority of LGBT people are working class and have every right to demand both. You're basing this on nothing, you're jsut saying that we can't have both because of a vulgur stereotype about workingclass people being more socially reactionary. San Francisco is a perfect example of why that was wrong. The middle class republican suburbanites hated the gay community like teh plague and associated them with communists and anarchists while teh gay community found allies in organized and unionized urban working class to win battles. Saying that we should address bigotry because it might upset some memeber of the working class is stupid and exactly the wrong thing to do. Not addressing identity politics has been bad for the many Indian communist parties and why they lost support. The fact that not only the labour movements but the majour church denominations fell in line behind gay rights earlier then the middle class in Canada help keep the labour movement stronger. And there are immediate demands that have to be made not just to help the LGBT community, such as teh disproportinately large humber of homeless youth that are LGBT, but specifically to change attitudes on this the same way the Communist party in the US did back in the 20s and 30s on issues of race.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

i do not care about the church

[Rugged Collectivist]

The simple fact remains, if the "fight against bigotry" is at the expense of working class social capital, I don't want to have that fight.

Coincidentally, the "fight against bigotry" seems to be mainly about attacking the altruistic religious in a rather sinister way that ignores the material reality and places you shoulder to shoulder with Libertarians.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep going on about the "altruistic church"? Actually, you haven't answered my question. Should we defend the church in countries with an atheist majority, where there's presumably no reason to?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't agree in the least bit. I seriously don't think it's a good idea to just ignore the issues facing lgbt workers just because "ah well there's not many of you".

That's kind of fucked up, in fact.
Not to mention that LGBT people are not some obscure group of oddities that spawn from hell every twenty years; one only needs to look back at history to find that they're extremely common.

The very fact that we cannot gauge the amount of homosexuals in society due to fear of coming out is absolutely horrifying. Hell, the very idea of having to 'come out of the closet' at all is a rancid evil of our culture. Determining which minority protection comes first is not the fucking way to do things - against all bigotry or a bigot yourself.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

The church provides social capital for the working class as well as a sense of "community". To deny this is to deny the material reality.

I want to point out that the church offering "community" in our atomized society, which is a thing you sorta borrowed from me here, isn't a good thing. It's a sign of our failures that they run to the church for what should be present in their own neighborhoods.


The problem with feminist/gay rights identity politics is that whilst it rightly dismisses heterosexual male cross class alliance as "sexist"

*buzzer sound*

Heterosexual cross class alliances aren't necessarily sexist and nobody is saying that but you. I know tons of liberal male feminists who vote for and campaign for left-ish millionaires too. Their collaboration with the wealthy in this case isn't sexist.

Meanwhile the old white dudes who vote for millionaires who openly talk about "legitimate rape" and barring homosexuals the benefits of civil matrimony, are.


the cynical cross class alliance of women in "feminism" (which is apparantley liberal, not sexist) makes society, and since the majority of society is working class, the working class atomized and disconnected.


Another user pointed out, though, that these marginalized groups actually face immediate threat because of sexism and homophobia. Access to birth control and medical screenings are certainly working class issues. Access to the benefits afforded by civil matrimony are certainly working class issues. And even though the the Democrats are just another party of austerity, another party of power and privilege, I can understand why the margianlized groups flock to them. Because they are dealing with immediate threats to their lives and livelihood.

Meanwhile, as stated by another user, you condemn that and give white working class men a pass for doing the same for no reason.

And like I've said dozens of times now, we criticize liberal feminists and lgbt advocates who ignore the issues of class when they talk about sexual identity and gender and sex.


Needless to say, working class men, who make up the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.

No one is on the vanguard of anything if they're shedding tears for the Church and getting upset that women want equal pay and access to birth control and that homosexuals want the limited relief of financial burden that civil matrimony guarantees.

[#FF0000]

Also as a working class man I'd seriously appreciate it if you'd stop trying to speak for me and my anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic co-workers.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

I think that you have a simplistic view of...

No, no I don't. I've associated with people of the church before, politically and in the workplace. I appreciate there are progressive individuals in the churches. I understand certain sects are especially progressive. I understand why people are religious. The fact of the matter is that the working class does not need church.


I think you gloss over the fact that the working class is majority straight males

"Straight white male" no longer describes the majority, actually, and even if it did, being the majority does not mean being the only ones that matter. I am not interested in the liberation of the majority of the working class. I'm interested in the liberation of the entire working class.


and do not think they have legitimate concerns.


Er, they don't think women and homosexuals don't have legitimate concerns? Thankfully my experience has suggested otherwise, but even if it were true, bigoted attitudes need to be rooted out, not pandered to. If they do not believe that women and homosexuals have legitimate concerns then they are wrong.


My problem with identity politics is that I think it is perhaps a bourgeoise construct to play different identities off each other.

That's cool and all, but a little unrealistic I think, considering how racism, homophobia, sexism, and other sorts of bigotry and othering have been used to do exactly that. Unless you think the bourgeoisie is behind these anti-sexist, anti-homophobic and anti-racist movements, playing different groups off each other with movements to fight against what the ruling class has... always used... to play different groups... off each other.


Whilst the neo liberal bourgeoisie left secures votes from LGBT/feminist voters who fear social repression of the neo liberal right.

Yeah and while I understand it, I think these marginalized running into the arms of center-right parties that promise to be nicer to them is futile in the end and doesn't help put a stop to their oppression. I don't think any of us think that.


And the result is that the material reality is ignored and the working class is still oppressed.


Yeah, which is why we criticize liberals and try to stamp out bigotry.


The Church on the other hand, standing for the so called “backward cultural views” that push straight working class males to mistakenly vote for neo liberal right does not jettison the economic issues. Additionally, the working class straight males also make up the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics.

A few things. First, you use words that you don't know the meaning of. Dummies who get duped into voting for the tories or republicans or who subscribe to some "economically leftish, socially conservative" proto-fascist blue-labor bullshit ain't "the vanguard" of anything.

Second, I'm kind of confused by what you mean when you say the church does not jettison economic issues. I know the churchs talks in vague platitudes about fairness and charity, but... so does the neo-liberal right. If you're not talking about that, the only other thing I can think of that you might be referring to is something like Catholic distributism, which is a solidly third-position economic philosophy.

Either way, I think we can make it real simple.

People who talk about gender and sexuality without taking class into consideration are wrong and should be criticized.

People who dismiss issues of gender and sexuality are wrong and should be criticized.

[graffic]

..

[doesn't even make sense]

And if you're going to dismiss women's rights why not the fight against racism?

Presumably because he doesn't want to get insta-banned.

[graffic]

..

[Zeus the Moose]

Um, hey. Just a thought.

Maybe this was addressed earlier because I've only been following this threat sporadically.

But what's with this talk about "social capital"? To my ears that sounds like you're promoting partnership between the working class and the capitalist class, and as such merely improving the lives of the working class as a subordinate class within a fundamentally oppressive system.

Are you really interested in liberation for anyone?

Jussayin'

[#FF0000]

Why can you not see that the idea of feminists and gays seeing themselves as having more in common with feminist and gay bourgeoise than working class men is extremely cynical?

i'm not sure how many times i gotta say that the people who do this are wrong. i have literally been saying this since page 1.



Whilst working class men who mistakenly think they have more in common with straight male bourgeoise than homosexual or feminist working class are vociferously condemned as being sexist, conservative and bigoted.

i literally addressed this clearly in the last post.

do you read anything or do you literally just type up the same response over and over again as soon as the new replies notification pops up?

[graffic]

..

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

For example church provides a chance for the working class to network with the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeois. A working class family who go to a church and network with the bourgeoisie might secure a job opportunity for their impoverished son. But if the church is closed this is no longer possible.

Let me go copy what another user said more eloquently than I could ever say:


But it seems like what you're advocating is neither libertarian nor revolutionary but rather reformist. It sounds like your main concern is maximizing the welfare of the working class under capitalism by vociferously opposing anything that might threaten the living conditions of workers in any way. Can't you see that this is a losing game? The game is rigged. Do you really think it just so happens that regressive social mores are associated with the neoliberal right, or that fear of social repression allows the neoliberal left to secure votes while jettisoning any regard for economic issues?

And while I'm on that point, you, presumably a straight white Christian (perhaps lapsed) male seem very strongly attuned to how conservative politicians exploit conservative values among large segments of workers to split the working class (although you blame the victim rather than the perpetrator).

Have you taken the time to think of the other side of the coin? For the massive segments of the working class (now, sorry to tell you, outnumbering the traditional straight aged white male blue collar worker) the social and often physical threat of a repressive social climate drives them to support the liberal establishment "left". Look at this latest election in the United States for a prime example. You disdain lgbt workers, female workers, and workers of color for making a political deal with the devil in the face of real and immediate threats to their well being but give conservative white workers a complete pass for making a similar deal with bourgeois politicians for no good reason at all other than sheer cultural backwardness. This bit of vile victim blaming is why your argument is viewed with such revulsion among leftists.

EDIT: You must have read this post -- you took language straight from it in a later post, with talk about the neoliberal left and right jettisoning economic issues.

[Comrade #138672]

To be honest, I think that he's making no sense on purpose. At least, I can't make much sense out of what he says and it just seems intentionally confusing and provoking.

For example, he says that "Fascism is more interesting than bourgeois Liberalism". He seems to make it a little bit more provoking every post.

[Zeus the Moose]

For example church provides a chance for the working class to network with the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeois. A working class family who go to a church and network with the bourgeoisie might secure a job opportunity for their impoverished son. But if the church is closed this is no longer possible.

So, you're not actually interested in liberation of anyone, then? Instead, merely creating "better opportunities" for people (of certain groups, it seems) within a fundamentally oppressive system.

Good to know.

[graffic]

..

[Zeus the Moose]

I think that we have to agree to disagree on emphasis.

That's fair enough.

You emphasise the maintenance of capitalism and systems of oppression in order to improve the lives of individual workers or small groups of workers. We emphasise working to overthrow capitalism and all systems of oppression.

So yeah, agree to disagree then :rolleyes:

EDIT:

I believe in freeing the working class from oppression however I also have reactionary urges such as defending certain aspects of conservative morality. After all, why do we not admit to these odd impulses and reactionary urges? Why pretend to be cleansed and pure? I don't want to live with that kind of illusion.

Admitting that you still hold reactionary views is a good thing. Failing to self-criticise and actively defending them to promote divisions within the workers movement is not.

[#FF0000]

I think that we have to agree to disagree on emphasis. I think that the material reality of the working class is much further up the pile than whether the working class are sexist and conservative or whether they are not sexist and conservative.

We're not really going to agree there either, because we are interested in the liberation of the working class, and not solely on the short term welfare. We're not about bigger cages and longer chains. We're about getting out of cages and breaking chains.


And if freedom from restrictions for LGBT/feminists is at the expense of working class social capital and working class welfare I will oppose those freedoms from restrictions.What you're saying is that if equality for marginalized groups inconveniences white straight males, you will support their privilege over equality?


I believe in freeing the working class from oppression however I also have reactionary urges such as defending certain aspects of conservative morality. After all, why do we not admit to these odd impulses and reactionary urges? Why pretend to be cleansed and pure? I don't want to live with that kind of illusion.

Well, I don't think you really have to. It's pretty easy to say, "well whatever, as long as they're not hurting anyone"

[l'Enfermé]

Yeah, sorry dude, I don't agree in the least bit. I seriously don't think it's a good idea to just ignore the issues facing lgbt workers just because "ah well there's not many of you".

That's kind of fucked up, in fact.
I said nothing of ignoring them, I merely said that the struggle for women's rights and anti-racism should be prioritized over LGBT rights stuff, they are issues as they effect more people, you can't put equal effort into so many different things and expect to accomplish much in any of them, I thought this is all fairly obvious.


Feminist/LGBT secular cross class alliance seen as “liberal” is down right hostile to the majority of the working class - straight working class males - in thought, deed, word and action.

Because it is an objective fact that the majority of the working class are straight males, and the majority of society is working class, it is an object fact that it is not only against the material interests of society as a whole, but more importantly against the material interests of the working class.

There is alternatively no such thing as a straight male cross class alliance cynically concerned with their own welfare, and there never has been. If you follow straight male concerns to their logical conclusion they are inclusive of society as a whole. If you follow Feminist/LGBT concerns to their logical conclusion they want an increasingly atomised Western society even more atomised and disconnected. And since the majority of the working class are straight working class males, feminist/LGBT rights undoubtedly divide the vanguard of revolutionary politics

Traditional cross class straight male alliance (“sexism”), perhaps embodied to an extent in establishments like the Church, is in working class and women's and homosexuals interests. Homophobes are a minority. Any Christian worth their title will welcome gay couples to their congregation.

The thing to remember is that the majority of the working class are straight males. And I think it is extremely patronizing and elitist to expect working class men to cleanse themselves of their conservative views towards women/LGBT community by destroying their social capital whilst they are still being oppressed by the ruling class and the material reality stays the same whilst working class feminists who abandon their struggle and side with feminist bourgeois get a free pass.

What the fuck are you babbling on about you stupid fucking sexist? We don't live in the 19th century anymore jackass, women are not an insignificant fraction of the proletariat(actually they weren't an insignificant fraction even in the 19th century, some of the most prominent labour struggles of the 19th century were those of female workers). As of 2012, there 115 million employed men and 97 million employed women between the ages of 15 and 64 in the European Union. In Canada there are 9 million employed men and 8.2 employed women. In Japan, 62 million people are employed, 42 percent of them women. In the United States, women make up like 69 million of the labour force, men 82 million. Etc, etc. Males do not have a significant majority over women, as far as proletarian demographics go.

Just fuck you.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

I think the material reality is otherwise. You deny that places like the church provide social capital for the working class as well as providing a sense of "community" even though I've given real life examples of how church allows working class people to network with the bourgeois.

You've given conceptual examples but I don't think church plays that big a role in that in actuality.


If you think the right of a gay couple (that may be poor, middle or rich) to be free from restrictions to get married is more important than a working class man on the breadline who relies on the church in all sorts of the ways who might even secure a job by networking with a bourgeoise family who goes there then I think you are at worst a libertarian or at best don't take the welfare of the working class seriously.I'm sorry, I don't think your example of the church is all that true to life, and further, marriage isn't just a fun thing to do. Civic matrimony relieves working class gay couples of of a large tax burden and makes attaining things like insurance and work benefits much easier. These are things that straight couples enjoy and take for granted, and are denied to gay couples. How is denying that "fair play"?

EDIT: plus, as i said before, I'm not interested in just making capitalism nicer. I want the working class to be able to overthrow class society. This can't be done, as I've said, if we don't acknowledge and move to eliminate privilege.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

Oh fuck off in the UK civil partnerships for gays gives homosexuals the same legal protections as married couples. Churches being forced to close because they are excluded from funding because they refuse to marry gays is not fair play.

Oh neat.

Funny thing actually, I just looked into the law you're talking about.

It's about lifting the ban on homosexual couples being married in church. Even churches where the clergy are cool with it, at the present time, aren't allowed to marry gay couples.

The law you're talking about is merely lifting the ban, isn't it?

[l'Enfermé]

What's wrong with churches being forced to close? Other than that we don't get to burn them down.

[l'Enfermé]

And yes, same-sex marriage is not legal in the UK.

[hetz]

Even churches where the clergy are cool with it, at the present time, aren't allowed to marry gay couples.Wait, secular laws forbid priests from marrying people in their churches?
What if one day this gets legalized but the clergy doesn't want to marry gay couples? Or will that be left up to individual churches to decide?

[graffic]

..

[Zeus the Moose]

It's so transparent a four year old could see through it.

Funny thing is that four year olds really like playing on slides, which are the classic slippery slopes.

[#FF0000]

No, you don't understand what you are commenting on.

You rightly point out that it isn't forcing any Church to carry out the marriages at all and you're right. For now, anyway. However just wait until the law is passed though. The minute that happens anyone not permitting it will be found to be breaking the law and will be dealt with accordingly.

The law you're talking about is merely lifting a ban that states that churches can't marry gay couples. Lifting that ban does not automatically translate into punishing churches that choose not to marry gay couples.

Your concerns in this thread are entirely baseless. You literally invented this impasse.

[#FF0000]

this thread started weird and then through a simple google search was launched in the twilight zone

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

In future churches who decide not to marry homosexuals will find themselves excluded from funding.

Evidence?

[l'Enfermé]

Bull fucking shit. The largest Church in the UK, the Church of England, with its 13,000 parishes and 40 cathedrals, has a budget of around a billion pounds; 3/4ths comes from the "worshippers in the parishes", not from the government, as graffic seems to be implying.

http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats/funding.aspx

The Catholics got almost 3,000 parishes. Don't know where they get their funding from but one can easily find it on google I suppose.

[graffic]

..

[Bayhinga]

Feminism and Gay rights perhaps anger the bourgeoisie, but anger the working class? No.

I could have a guess and say that you were a SAWCSM that had no idea about what feminism is at all.

[#FF0000]

You are losing your mind over a law that doesn't even exist in the heads of lawmakers yet.

and like others have said you seem more concerned with making capitalism nicer than you are in the working class organizing to overthrow it.

so

yeah.

edit: also i don't buy that the service churches provide in "social capital" is nearly as big a thing as you assert it is. nor do I buy that anything that is happening is going to affect the church's charity work. nor do i think the church is something worth shedding tears over so v:mellow:v

[Jimmie Higgins]

Please provide a single instance of feminism and gay rights "raising the consciousness among the working class".

Well leaving aside that in organizing against systemic oppression working class women and LGBTs are helping to raise consiousness and organization among an oppressed section of the working class. And because of the way that sexism and homophobia specifically impact working class people, the demands of workers in these movements will reflect concerns such as equal-pay, job discrimination, repression and conformity demands on workers in the workplace, healthcare for workers etc.

But let's see where have LGBT struggles and anti-sexist struggles directly impacted consiousness among the general working class, excluding people from these specific categories:

1. After the Stonewall uprising Huey Newton wrote about how gay folks are probably more oppressed in the US than even blacks and that radicals should stop calling the pigs "fags" and see common cause with that fight against oppression.

2. There are countless examples of how overcoming sexism bolstered strikes - either of men and women or of mostly men. The flint-sit down strikes are an example of this where women organized the broader community in support of the factory occupations and created the networks to bring food in and stand up to the authorities. Many of the early US strike famously involved women and the issues of women's liberation and worker's power on the job were inherently intertwined. There's a quote from an IWW striker which I love - to paraphrase: she is talking about how the press tried to "emasuclate" strikers and radicals by saying the IWW hides behind a contingent of women workers: "They say the IWW strike while hiding behind women, I say, no the IWW doesn't hide behind us, they just don't hold us back".

The struggle of the oppressed and specifically in the US blacks, women, and LGBTs is a class struggle - even if not just workers are imacted by these oppressions. The middle class is also negativly impacted by war and economic crisis - that doesn't mean these aren't inherently class issues either.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Needless to say, today the bourgeoise can use Identity politics in certain cases against the working class just like social conservatism divides the the working class for Libertarian ends.ID politics don't create divisions - they are already there. It is mearly an inadaquate responce to those existing divisions and not equatable to chauvanism of the nation or non-oppressed groups in society.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You ignore the fact that feminists and gays seeing themselves as having more in common with feminist and gay bourgeoise
I'm queer, feminist, and a class struggle activist. You're oversimplifying things.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Which would make it impossible for CofE to continue its role conducting marriages on behalf of the state. And some churches will end up having to close once they are dealt with for breaking the law.
Perhaps it's time for England to do away with a state religion, and adopt separation of church and state. Marriage would then become a purely civil matter by law.

[graffic]

..

[Jimmie Higgins]

Bourgeoise ID politics are partly responsible for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political lifeI'd argue that it was a way that academics and some social justice type activists reacted to a lack of united struggle, rather than a cause of declining struggle. When did ID politics become widespread - in the 1990s so working class struggle had been low for about a decade when these ideas came to prominance. They reflect a idealist pessimism about being able to actually defeat oppression, so instead of liberation (as in the 1970s movements) it became about "celebrating difference" rather than trying to get rid of the structures which cause oppression.


because working class men, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be, tend to find it very patronizing and alienating to be told by the bourgeois that they should be cleansed of sexism and homophobia even if they are not (or if they just confess to reactionary urges but do not act on them which is perfectly natural and normal similar to how women would have anti-male urges but not act on them) whilst they are being exploited by the capitalist class.If you mean that some ID politics adherents think that working class people in general are irrevocobly "part of the problem" - then yes that's true, but that's true of liberal ideas in most movements... "workers only care about wages" "workers are pro-war" "workers are pro-capitalism" etc.

People on the revolutionary left who see building movements against oppression as an important part of the larger class struggle, do not see working class people as the problem. As I have tried to argue here, in my view, the class needs to unite together and take on specific opressions if we are going to be able to ever build a real class movement. So workers are not "part of the problem" but part of the solution.

On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that since male workers ARE anti-women's-lib and anti-gay-rights, i.e. "part of the problem" when it comes to these oppressions, we shouldn't try and fight on these issues because it will alienate this reactionary mass from radical politics.


I disagree that a more diverse capitalist class exploiting the working class is "mearly an inadaquate responce to those existing divisions". I think it is perhaps a "nicer", less sexist form of capitalism however the material reality is basically still the same. So it's not even nice at all, its actually fucked up.More than a majority of woment and LGBT people are working class - so are you just against a "diverse" working class movement then?

How the hell is there ever going to be a working class movement, if male workers say to half the working class - no, you get paid less and if you complain you are being divisive.

[RedAtheist]

Rather than trying to respond directly to the reactionary asshole on this thread, I'm just going to list the contradictions in what he is saying.

1. He claimed that feminists weren't trying to ensure that there was a certain quota of working class people in big business, when having working class people running big businesses is logically impossible.

2. He complains about feminists and gays relating more to capitalists than they do to working class men, then praises churches for providing workers with an opportunity to 'network' with capitalists and creating a sense of 'community' which (if there are any capitalists in the church) would mean creating a sense of community between capitalists and workers.

3. He simultaneously complains about and promotes gender stereotypes ('it's so hard to be man, because people expect you to be tough, while women are expected to be weak, but it's better that way')

Let's not forget that promoting gender stereotypes means promoting the idea that there is huge, massive difference between one section of the working class and another. Hell, if there's anything that makes working class women relate to capitalist women and, its the idea that all women (regardless of their class position and life experiences) are gentle, soft, squishy, baby machines whose purpose in life is dutifully submit to their husbands and raise their children in the church.

4. He keeps complaining about how people who disagree with him are denying 'material reality', when religion claims material reality is completely unimportant and that what matter is the supernatural afterlife.

Furthermore, this jerk seems to like inventing his own terms.

Workers don't have 'social capital'. Capital is stuff used to generate a profit and people who own capital aren't workers.

People who support gay marriage are not necessarily 'libertarian'. Same goes for people who support 'feminism' (though he hasn't named a specific feminist policy which he views as libertarian.)

In fact social libertarians rant about how awful feminists are for criticising pornography, advertising, prostitution, etc. The difference between libertarians and radicals, is not that libertarians support 'freedom from restrictions' and radicals don't, but that libertarians think the only restrictions on freedom come from government laws and the use of force, while radicals recognise that people's opportunities and desires are shaped by economic conditions and cultural influences, meaning that the economic and cultural dominance of the ruling class is also a threat to people's liberty in the eyes of radicals.

[#FF0000]

Bourgeoise ID politics are partly responsible for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life because working class men, who are not the homogeneously reactionary force that they are made out to be

By you, by the way. The only one making working class men out to be homogeneously reactionary is you.



tend to find it very patronizing and alienating to be told by the bourgeois that they should be cleansed of sexism and homophobia even if they are not

But that is not feminism or lgbt advocacy or whatever. That is rich people being condescending. And, yo again, an ivory tower liberal feminist such as that would be buried under criticism by us as I've told you at least a dozen times already.


I disagree that a more diverse capitalist class exploiting the working class is "mearly an inadaquate responce to those existing divisions".

It's awesome that you disagree with a thing that nobody said.


I think it is perhaps a "nicer", less sexist form of capitalism however the material reality is basically still the same. So it's not even nice at all, its actually fucked up.

That is fine and we all agree on that but in the meantime you were getting all upset and sad when we were saying the same thing in regard to the church and its charity.

[Rugged Collectivist]

The church provides social capital for the working class as well as a sense of "community". To deny this is to deny the material reality. I consider "fighting" this bad considering Western society is increasingly atomized as it is and this breakdown is a working class breakdown because they are the majority. Social disconnection does not affect the rich.

I agree with #FF0000 on this point. We shouldn't let reactionary organizations provide the working class with a "community". We should be doing that. You have to remember that the church hierarchy is almost uniformly in support of capitalism. I think it's counterproductive to embrace reactionary thought just because the majority of other workers do. As I said before, the majority of workers support and believe in the capitalist system. Should we stop fighting capitalism because most workers don't?


The problem with feminist/gay rights identity politics is that whilst it rightly dismisses heterosexual male cross class alliance as "sexist" the cynical cross class alliance of women in "feminism" (which is apparantley liberal, not sexist) makes society, and since the majority of society is working class, the working class atomized and disconnected.

This is a straw man argument against feminism. Liberal feminists who reject class are our enemies. Everyone on this forum is supporting socialist feminism, which looks at these issues through the lens of class. You can't lump all feminists together like that. It's dishonest and stupid.


Needless to say, working class men, who make up the majority of the vanguard of revolutionary politics, tend to find this all very patronising and alienating, which is one of the many reasons for the increasing non-involvement of the working class in political life.

Well, unlike you I can't claim to speak for all working class men, but as a man who will almost certainly end up in the ranks of the working class, I can say that I personally don't find feminism or the struggle against racism and homophobia patronizing.

[graffic]

..

[#FF0000]

I don't think all people with faith are reactionary. I think identity politics that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, is non-productive. Whatever you say about the church, it doesn't ignore the broader social context like bourgeoise ID politics does.

But feminism doesn't necessarily ignore the broader social context or class, which we've been trying to explain to you since page one.

And the idea that the church, specifically the church of england pays attention to "broader social context and class" in any significant way is pretty funny to me. I would love to see the Church Of England's critique of capital and wage labor if you could point me in the direction of that particular ecclesiastical text.

[Zeus the Moose]

I don't think all people with faith are reactionary. I think identity politics that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, is non-productive. Whatever you say about the church, it doesn't ignore the broader social context like bourgeoise ID politics does.

Who on this thread as said "all people with faith are reactionary"? The church organisations may have broadly reactionary politics (or at least non-communist politics and tend to focus on amelioration rather than liberation), but that doesn't mean all the people who are members of religious groups are reactionary.

As for "broader social context," it is true that most churches recognise the gap between the rich and the poor, and many work to help alleviate the worst problems of poverty. At the same time, though, there is a fatalistic attitude of "the poor will always be with us," which gives up any hope of overcoming the root causes of problems that make people poor (ie, capitalism.) So while churches might do good (and necessary!) charity work, they're not actually working to free people.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't think all people with faith are reactionary. I think identity politics that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, is non-productive. Whatever you say about the church, it doesn't ignore the broader social context like bourgeoise ID politics does.

No one is saying that all religious people are reactionary. I'm trying to explain that the church plays a reactionary role in society, and the church hierarchy is inherently reactionary. The church DOES ignore the broader social context, it explicitly opposes class struggle and serves as a defense mechanism for capital.

I already explained that feminism can be approached from a socialist perspective that doesn't ignore class. You're still beating a straw man and frankly it's starting to get old. You refuse to engage with anyone in this thread. Whenever we refute one of your bullshit points you just repeat it over and over again. I can't tell if you're a troll or an idiot.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think all people with faith are reactionary.No religious people are not in any way inherently reactionary. People who support oppression are inherently reactionary. So people aren't reactioaries if they believe in Jesus - they are if they blame all jews for his death; they aren't necissarily reactionaries if they are religious - but they are if they oppose equal rights for women.


I think identity politics that ignores the broader social context and, crucially, class, is non-productive.Ok, yeah that is part of why ID politics aren't very useful for liberation.
Whatever you say about the church, it doesn't ignore the broader social context like bourgeoise ID politics does.Yes it does generally, ID politics as well as most religious views accept poverty and oppression as "part of life" the result of - human nature, original sin, some in-born drive towards patriarchy by men, etc.

[graffic]

No one is saying that all religious people are reactionary. I'm trying to explain that the church plays a reactionary role in society, and the church hierarchy is inherently reactionary. The church DOES ignore the broader social context, it explicitly opposes class struggle and serves as a defense mechanism for capital.

I already explained that feminism can be approached from a socialist perspective that doesn't ignore class. You're still beating a straw man and frankly it's starting to get old. You refuse to engage with anyone in this thread. Whenever we refute one of your bullshit points you just repeat it over and over again. I can't tell if you're a troll or an idiot.

No I understand.

[graffic]

..

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not saying that organised religion is progressive and churches are full of communists however the material reality is that the church is far less cynical and more democratic than bougeoise ID politics. For example good deeds, helping the poor, altruism etcWell first you are comparing organizations to a worldview: ideas to deeds. ID politics don't "do" anything on their own it's one theory for understanding society and oppression in society.

So what do ID-influenced groups tend to do in practice? Ususally some self-help, education/networking, but mostly cultural events - at least in the US currently. The attitude was larger in general protests against homophobia, racism, and sexism about 15 years ago, but I don't think it represented many actual organizations explicitly - more of a common view among many liberals at the time.

So in my view, on the one hand you have church charity which certaitly helps the induviduals served, but a sort of self-help Latino or Women's organization I'm sure also helps participants induvidually deal with some aspects of oppression. In other words, neither in practice (or in ideas IMO) offer anything but mitigating present bad conditions - they have no conception of how to actually rid ourselves of povery/alienation (churches) or oppression and inequality (Identity-based organizations).

Second, you are conflating ID politics with any attempt at challenging oppression. This is a straw-man because not all attepts at confronting these issues are based on ID politics - in fact they can potentially be based in, for example, liberal (such as bourgois feminism) or revolutionary class politics.

So is ID politics the best approach to challenging racism and sexism and so on? In my view no - not on its own terms because it accepts these things as determined facts of society and ultimatly seeks an arragment within that situation - and not on revolutionary marxist terms because it is idealist, misunderstands the relationship between class and oppression and the system and consaquentally offers no guide to actual liberation.

But are struggles of the oppressed always ID politics? No more than every strike is communist in consious outlook and goals. And no more, actually, than any struggle of the oppressed is always communist in goals - therfore it's a political batte within these struggles over if it goes in a liberal, identity, nationalist, or revolutionary class direction.


Bourgeoise ID politics doesn't generate a heart and imagination. Church is much bigger than that. And in the UK where only 11% of the population regularly attend church, it's the kind of bourgeoise politics that is most effective in hampering class politics. Christianity has practically been deleted from existence by successive governments and the education system. We live in a secular society now.I'm not certain as to your point here.

[graffic]

..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But the church is democratically offering to mitigate present bad conditions.

Which church would that be? Because as far as I know neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church are democratic in their functioning.

Even if they were democratic, that wouldn't change their reactionary role in society.

[graffic]

As someone who's volunteered at a Christian charity, they accept anyone regardless of gender/sexuality and have no requirement for the homeless to convert. Helping is one thing - conversion is another. If you expressed an interest in converting (and that would be from you on your own accord with no prompting) they would explain their religion. If you didn't ask first you'd never hear about it. They do care about the people they work with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As someone who's volunteered at a Christian charity, they accept anyone regardless of gender/sexuality and have no requirement for the homeless to convert. Helping is one thing - conversion is another. If you expressed an interest in converting (and that would be from you on your own accord with no prompting) they would explain their religion. If you didn't ask first you'd never hear about it. They do care about the people they work with.

None of which has to do with actual democracy. Democracy isn't making the decision not to proselytise to a captive audience - although I'm kind of curious how they prevent themselves from inadvertently or implicitly proselytising - democracy is a description of how an organisation makes decisions and allocates responsibility.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As someone who's volunteered at a Christian charity, they accept anyone regardless of gender/sexuality and have no requirement for the homeless to convert. Helping is one thing - conversion is another. If you expressed an interest in converting (and that would be from you on your own accord with no prompting) they would explain their religion. If you didn't ask first you'd never hear about it. They do care about the people they work with.I think maybe you mean egalitarian - or possible "open". But your description doesn't indicate democratic organization. Hardly any charity NGO, or church is run democratically, but if they are or not, the act of charity is a little help at best but not a cure in anyway.

Here's the christian version: Charity gives people fish but doesn't teach people to provide themselves with fish. Revolutionary politics are aimed at organizing people remove the ruling class barriers to the lake so people are able to fish for themselves.[/silly analogy]

So unlike just helping people (which is fine in of itself, but is not a way out of this mess) movements against oppression of women or other groups in society can potentially be a place where working class people confront the system and ruling class whose system relies on (and their policians and other institutions often directly promote) oppression, and learn how to work together to fight for more power in society. These skills and confidence help induviduals involved to become "fishermen" but it is also, in my opinion, necissary in order for working people to begin to come together and seek how economic and social oppression are linked by the same system. Charity, ID politics, and reformism ultimately, are inadaquate for these tasks for various reasons - even when on the short term or on an induvidual level there may be some soothing results.

[graffic]

@ Noxion I don't think it matters. Somebody who legitimately helps the poor is a good person, and that obviously doesn't make everything they do or say right. Bourgeoise identity politics such as feminist quota's is concerned with getting more women into the capitalist class to exploit the working class. The religious deserve more respect than bourgeoise feminist do based on this simple, binary analysis.

[Jimmie Higgins]

@ Noxion I don't think it matters. Somebody who legitimately helps the poor is a good person, and that obviously doesn't make everything they do or say right. Bourgeoise identity politics such as feminist quota's is concerned with getting more women into the capitalist class to exploit the working class. The religious deserve more respect than bourgeoise feminist do based on this simple, binary analysis.

Saying someone is "religious" or a "feminist" doesn't really tell us much about their relation to the class struggle, their tactics if they do engage socially, or even their political outlook.

Edit: but if we compare charity-work and movements against oppression: then the second is actually part of the class struggle with the potential to help people organize themselves against the current order of society, and the other is just a way to soothe the effects of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@ Noxion I don't think it matters. Somebody who legitimately helps the poor is a good person, and that obviously doesn't make everything they do or say right. Bourgeoise identity politics such as feminist quota's is concerned with getting more women into the capitalist class to exploit the working class. The religious deserve more respect than bourgeoise feminist do based on this simple, binary analysis.

The problem is that your simple, binary analysis ignores the wider reality that "feminist quotas" (you still haven't shown they actually exist) are but a small part of some of the ruling system's institutions, while the church forms a ruling class institution in itself.

[graffic]

The Labour party for example uses women only shortlists.

One can still be religious and support class struggle. The church is egalitarian. Identity politics is just a celebration of what you were born into. Celebrating an accident of birth denies the possibility of transcending what you are and striving for a better future for yourself, your family and your community.

[Rugged Collectivist]

One can still be religious and support class struggle.

Correct.


The church is egalitarian.

No. The church is most certainly not egalitarian. It's extremely hierarchical and authoritarian. The laypeople are expected to do what they're told by the clergy, Only the clergy has the power to forgive sins, Papal infallibility, etc. There are some branches of protestantism that are pretty egalitarian, but these groups are in the minority.


Identity politics is just a celebration of what you were born into. Celebrating an accident of birth denies the possibility of transcending what you are and striving for a better future for yourself, your family and your community.

Feminism, queer rights, and the struggle against racism isn't a "celebration" of anything. These movements exist for the purpose of transcending barriers that these communities face.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Labour party for example uses women only shortlists.

I don't think most workers could give a toss about the internal policies of the Labour party. I think you are seriously grasping at straws here.


One can still be religious and support class struggle. The church is egalitarian.

Which is why there is close to a 50/50 ratio between mean and women in the clergy, right? Hint: There isn't.


Identity politics is just a celebration of what you were born into. Celebrating an accident of birth denies the possibility of transcending what you are and striving for a better future for yourself, your family and your community.

How does one "transcend" being female, or being non-white? Bourgeois identity politics may not be the answer, but neither is pretending that there's no problems in society with sexism or racism.

[graffic]

How does one "transcend" being female, or being non-white? Bourgeois identity politics may not be the answer, but neither is pretending that there's no problems in society with sexism or racism.

I agree with what you are saying and TBH I've never debated this with anyone in real life because the meetings I go to, with Counter fire and Marxist reading group, I would end up being accused of homophobia or being a fascist.

But that doesn't change the fact that the emphasis by the "New Left" on identity politics over the "dogmatic" class politics pisses me off far more than people with private religious faith do.

[#FF0000]

Identity politics is just a celebration of what you were born into.

The things you call "identity politics" don't necessarily do that. Some people focus on "celebrating differences/identity" (the people who are wrong) and others focus on liberation.

[RedAtheist]

I don't get what's so bad about a 'women quota' in business. I recognise that as long as we live in a capitalist society CEOs are going to act in accordance with the principles of capitalism (ruthlessly exploiting people to earn a profit). Thus having more female CEOs will not fundamentally change things.

However, does this policy actually hurt anybody? Is it really worse than an entirely male ruling class? And if it doesn't hurt people, what does this anti-feminist reactionary find so objectionable about it? He's not just saying the policy isn't radical enough or that it doesn't pose a sufficient change to capitalism, he's acting as though this policy means the end of the world. Why? You could argue that the policy damages class consciousness, but an average income women would have to already be a pretty strong believer in capitalism to think that she's going to be able to become a CEO as a result of a quota.

So what's the big problem? Did this anti-feminist male try to become a CEO and get denied the position because of the female quota? Is he a libertarian who thinks anything which interferes with the natural workings of capitalism is evil? Who knows, what this man's reasoning is.

Personally, I neither support 'women quotas' for CEO positions, nor do I strongly oppose them. I think radicals should be vary of those who are not merely unsupportive of such policies (a position I fully understand), but fiercely opposed to them. Afterall if a man is freaked out about the possibility of women CEOs (moreso than they are about the 200 year long existance of male CEOs), what makes us think he will be okay with a female revolutionary leader?

[Avanti]

Perhaps this is a controversial opinion but I think it is an objective fact that feminism and gay rights movements since the 60's have done nothing to change the material reality of the working class in America and Europe. Why do "revolutionaries" support them and consider bourgeois politicians who spout "feminist" rhetoric or gay rights "rhetoric" better than traditional bourgeois politicians who don't when it divides the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

Dismissing the working class as sexist. racist, and conservative is perhaps as sinister as traditional snobbery because it falsely implies an objective moral superiority and judgment over the working class. Freedom from restrictions for feminists and homosexuals is at the expense of social justice and establishments that uphold social capital for the working class such as the Church for example. Because it seems an unfair and unjustified trade off of "liberty" which overwhelmingly harms the traditional working class it is perhaps a form of top down class warfare. The material reality is that the secularist language of freedom of restrictions rather than social justice and fair play divides the working class and is therefore the language of libertarians and not revolutionaries.

well, fuck that...

socialism is about liberation, not about redistribution.

redistribution is only a tool to achieve liberation.

soviet socialism was a bourgeois society where the workers were squared into idealised puritan bourgeois norms.

real socialism is 1968.